Publication summary
31% 6 analyzed articles/videos 4,505 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Atlanta Civic Circle results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Framing Effect , and Self-Serving Bias , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.3% saturation with 770 hits . Analysis detected 7,990 faulty-reasoning hits from 14,627 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 26% (307 of 410 publications). This Atlanta Civic Circle is better (less manipulative) than 74.80% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 14,627
Article count: 6
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
25% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 25.2% percentile 1.4% BS Score6 analyzed articles14.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Publication 4.7% 4.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 5.3% 5.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 5.1% 5.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 3.0% 3.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.6% 1.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 1.1% 1.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.8% 2.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 2.3% 2.3% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 0.8% 0.8% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Publication 4.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 5.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 5.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.8%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 3.5%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.1%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% False Dilemma: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 1.5% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst